NVIDIA GeForce MX130 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The MX130 posts a score of 6102, while the Quadro 4000 finishes at 4979. That represents a 22.6% advantage for the MX130, a substantial margin in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload. The MX130 wins the only head-to-head test recorded, giving it a 1 to 0 win tally.

Looking beyond the direct comparison, the MX130's average benchmark score of 5508 places it slightly ahead of the Quadro 4000's 4979 average. The percentile data reinforces this gap: the MX130 sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 4000 lands at the 29th percentile. While both are near the lower end of the performance spectrum, the MX130 holds a clear, if modest, edge in overall standing.

The nearest rival data provides additional context for each card. The MX130's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M with an average score of 5501, a delta of just 0.1% in favor of the MX130. That is effectively a tie. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483) trails by 0.5%, and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467) trails by 0.7%. On the other side, the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537) leads the MX130 by 0.5%. So the MX130 is clustered tightly with a group of mid-range mobile and workstation parts, none of which separate themselves by more than a fraction of a percent.

The Quadro 4000's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB with an average score of 4970, a delta of just 0.2% in favor of the Quadro 4000. That is a remarkable pairing: a modern, high-end gaming card matching a decade-old workstation GPU in this particular synthetic test. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998) leads the Quadro 4000 by 0.4%, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018) leads by 0.8%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931) trails by 1%. The Quadro 4000 is thus surrounded by integrated and entry-level parts, which underscores its age and limited standing in the current database.

Interpreting the head-to-head result requires some nuance. The Geekbench OpenCL test is a compute-oriented workload, not a gaming or professional application benchmark. The MX130's 22.6% lead suggests its Maxwell architecture handles this particular compute pattern more efficiently than the Fermi-based Quadro 4000. The MX130 also benefits from a much higher FP32 throughput rating (913.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS), which likely explains a large portion of the delta. The Quadro 4000 does counter with a wider memory bus and higher bandwidth, but those advantages do not translate into a win on this test.

The wins tally is one-sided, but the sample size is minimal. A single benchmark does not capture the full picture for either card. The MX130's additional Vulkan score of 4914 (not present for the Quadro 4000) suggests it has broader API support, but that score is not part of the head-to-head comparison. For the purposes of this database, the MX130 is the faster card in direct compute comparison, and the average scores and percentiles corroborate that conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct benchmark comparison in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 wins the only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 6102 versus the Quadro 4000's 4979. The MX130 leads by 22.6%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall percentile ranking?

A: The MX130 ranks at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 ranks at the 29th percentile. Both are below the midpoint, but the MX130 holds a higher standing.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The MX130 has an average benchmark score of 5508, while the Quadro 4000 averages 4979. The MX130's average is about 10.6% higher.

Q: Which rivals are closest to the MX130 in the database?

A: The closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M with an average score of 5501, a 0.1% delta. The AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483) trails by 0.5%, and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467) trails by 0.7%. The AMD FirePro M4000 (5537) leads by 0.5%.

Q: Which rivals are closest to the Quadro 4000 in the database?

A: The closest is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB with an average score of 4970, a 0.2% delta in favor of the Quadro 4000. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998) leads by 0.4%, the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018) leads by 0.8%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931) trails by 1%.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000 have any benchmark scores besides Geekbench OpenCL?

A: No. The database records only a single Geekbench OpenCL score of 4979 for the Quadro 4000. The MX130, by contrast, has both OpenCL (6102) and Vulkan (4914) scores recorded.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance as measured by the database. Its 22.6% lead over the Quadro 4000 in Geekbench OpenCL is not a marginal gap; it is a clear, measurable advantage. The MX130 also holds a higher average score (5508 versus 4979) and a higher percentile rank (32nd versus 29th). For general compute tasks, synthetic benchmarks, or any workload that resembles the OpenCL test, the MX130 is the stronger choice.

The Quadro 4000 does have redeeming qualities, but they are not reflected in the benchmark data. Its 256-bit memory bus and 89.86 GB/s bandwidth are far superior to the MX130's 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s. In memory-bound professional workloads, that could matter. However, the database contains no benchmark that captures such a scenario. Based strictly on recorded performance, the Quadro 4000 loses the only comparison available.

Who should pick the MX130? Anyone whose primary concern is compute throughput, API compatibility, or modern architecture support. The MX130 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000 has no recorded Vulkan support. The MX130 also has a higher FP32 rating (913.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS), which aligns with its benchmark victory.

Who should pick the Quadro 4000? Only those with a specific need for its memory subsystem characteristics, such as the 256-bit bus and higher bandwidth, or those who require its display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) and desktop form factor. The Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card with a 241 mm length, while the MX130 is an integrated GPU with portable-device-dependent outputs. For a workstation with dedicated display connectivity needs, the Quadro 4000 has a structural advantage. But for benchmark performance, it is the weaker option.

The verdict is straightforward: the MX130 wins on measured performance, while the Quadro 4000 offers a different physical and memory profile that the benchmarks do not reward.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The MX130 uses a 28 nm process node, while the Quadro 4000 uses a 40 nm node. Transistor counts diverge sharply: the Quadro 4000 packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, versus 1,020 million on a 77 mm² die for the MX130. Transistor density reflects this: the MX130 achieves 13.2M / mm², while the Quadro 4000 manages only 5.9M / mm².

Clock behavior differs as well. The MX130 has a base clock of 1109 MHz and a boost clock of 1189 MHz. The Quadro 4000 has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory clocks also differ: the MX130 runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 4000 runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the bus widths are 64-bit for the MX130 and 256-bit for the Quadro 4000. That yields bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s for the MX130 and 89.86 GB/s for the Quadro 4000, a 2.2x advantage for the older card.

Compute unit counts vary. The MX130 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The MX130 has more shaders but fewer TMUs and ROPs. Pixel rate is 9.512 GPixel/s for the MX130 versus 7.600 GPixel/s for the Quadro 4000. Texture rate is 28.54 GTexel/s for the MX130 versus 15.20 GTexel/s for the Quadro 4000. FP32 compute is 913.2 GFLOPS for the MX130 versus 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000.

Power and physical specs differ substantially. The MX130 has a 30 W TDP with no power connectors and an IGP slot width. The Quadro 4000 has a 142 W TDP, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, suggests a 300 W PSU, and occupies a single slot. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX130 and PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro 4000. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the MX130, while the Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The Quadro 4000 has recorded dimensions of 241 mm length, 111 mm height, and 20 mm width; the MX130 has none.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is generational. The MX130 is built on Maxwell, while the Quadro 4000 uses Fermi. This is a two-generation jump in NVIDIA's architecture timeline, and it explains much of the performance delta.

The process node tells part of the story: 28 nm for the MX130 versus 40 nm for the Quadro 4000. The smaller node allows the MX130 to pack 1,020 million transistors into just 77 mm², achieving a transistor density of 13.2M / mm². The Quadro 4000, by contrast, uses 3,100 million transistors across 529 mm², a density of only 5.9M / mm². The MX130 is a far denser, more efficient design.

The chip identities confirm the architectural split. The MX130 uses the GM108S chip, a small Maxwell part designed for low-power mobile integration. The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, the original Fermi flagship that also powered early GeForce GTX 400-series cards. The GF100 is a large, power-hungry design from 2010, while the GM108S is a compact, efficient part from 2017.

API support differs meaningfully. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The MX130 adds Vulkan 1.4 support, while the Quadro 4000 has no recorded Vulkan support. This makes the MX130 more future-proof for modern applications that leverage Vulkan.

The generation labels reflect different product lines. The MX130 belongs to the GeForce MX (1xx) generation, a mobile-focused series. The Quadro 4000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi (x000) generation, a workstation-oriented lineup. The Quadro 4000's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler, indicating a clear product evolution that predates the MX130's release.

Both cards are end-of-life in the database. The MX130 was released on 2017-11-16, while the Quadro 4000 was released on 2010-11-01. The Quadro 4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,199 USD, while the MX130 has no recorded MSRP. The Quadro 4000's TDP of 142 W is nearly five times the MX130's 30 W, highlighting the efficiency gains of the newer Maxwell architecture. The MX130 achieves higher FP32, texture, and pixel rates while consuming far less power, a direct result of its architectural and process advantages.